Faculty Evaluation of Administrators
A Report by the Governance Committee
Of the SUNY University Faculty Senate
Presented to the Winter Plenary
2005
Scope of the Report
This report draws primarily on resources from within SUNY, readily available
information from the work of the Governance Committee, from campus bylaws and
governance websites, and system documents. Other sources include interviews and
written exchanges with SUNY faculty and staff at selected campuses where faculty
evaluation of administrators has been taking place on a regular basis or at least
sporadically, but no attempt has been made to contact every SUNY unit. The objective
is to identify what works and has worked best within these existing evaluations. As
explained below, the primary emphasis of this report is on faculty evaluation of
administrators below the level of campus president.
Rationale
Over at least the last decade, a movement towards greater accountability and
transparency has occurred in higher education as elsewhere, and faculty evaluation of
administrators is one response to this increased expectation. To state the obvious,
evaluation of job performance exists throughout institutions of higher learning: faculty
evaluate student performance, faculty themselves generally invite student evaluations and
are themselves subject to rigorous peer and institutional review for tenure, promotion,
and merit awards, and the SUNY Chancellor (see below) institutes regular evaluation of
campus presidents. Faculty evaluation of senior administration should not be confused
with “line review” performed within administration itself, nor should “line review” be
used to foreclose faculty evaluation of administration. Often while“line review” involves
some faculty input, the faculty does not initiate the process, it usually does not
participate broadly, nor does it have “ownership” of the process.
The Chancellor’s Review Cycle of SUNY College Presidents
The Chancellor has initiated a regular review of campus presidents. But because
initiation and “ownership” of the process does not specifically reside with local faculty,
we have regarded it as outside the scope of this report. The Chancellor’s review is
described in “Guidelines for Presidential Reviews & Evaluations at State-Operated
Campuses.” This document describes an annual review process that does not require a
“Faculty Evaluation of Administrators”
faculty role and a periodic full scale formal evaluation, typically at the three year point
(new presidents) or at five years (continuing presidents) which does solicit faculty
involvement. A “senior faculty member” may be invited to serve on the Evaluation
Team and the Chancellor “will invite…governance leaders…to submit written comments
on the quality of the President’s stewardship” but the “Guidelines” do not stipulate
campus-wide faculty input, though in practice this seems to have occurred at most
campuses where the formal review has taken place. The “Guidelines” also require that
“requests for comments regarding Presidential stewardship shall be considered
confidential.”
Results of Governance Committee Survey
In the academic year 2002-3, the Governance Committee conducted a survey of
27 SUNY campuses to determine the extent to which these campuses had procedures in
place for faculty to evaluate senior administrators (dean and above). Of the 24
campuses responding, just over half indicated that guidelines for evaluation were “in
place,” but a large majority of campuses reported that there was “little or no role for
faculty governance in evaluation of senior administrators,” which is consistent with the
findings of this report that while guidelines may be in place, they are often not
implemented on a regular basis or at all. The Governance Committee Survey noted that
“The key factor in determining whether faculty at an institution has a meaningful role
seems to be the sense that the faculty has of itself.” Campuses that have a strong faculty
culture which values independence and stewardship are more likely to press for a faculty
prerogative to evaluate administration.
General Observations
Evaluation of administrators by faculty works best when all parties involved
consider it an attempt to improve the health and strength of the institution rather than
targeting individuals. While administrators under review may not always be eager to
embrace evaluation, they will accept it more readily when they perceive that the process
is being administered fairly and that results generated are used to improve job
performance. (At least one SUNY institution solicits a faculty recommendation for or
against an administrator’s retention, but this is the exception rather than the rule.)
Because administrative evaluation is a sporadic process often performed by ad
hoc committees monitored by frequently-shifting governance leadership, it is important
to ground the process in campus bylaws or a similar document and to make the process as
streamlined and minimally onerous as possible. In practice, some campus bylaws
specify a general expectation and a process for administrative evaluation, leaving it to
evaluation committees to generate the details, while other bylaws are quite full and
prescriptive. But the important point is that there is a written, mutually-agreed on
process in place.
2
“Faculty Evaluation of Administrators”
Oversight
It is most important that the practice of faculty evaluation of administrators be
monitored by an individual or individuals who is not a member of the evaluating
committee and who is directly answerable to the faculty and professional staff and
ultimately to the larger college community. In practice this is typically the campus
governance leader working in cooperation with the governance executive committee.
While generally not participating in the evaluation, these individuals will typically
initiate the evaluation of specific individuals on a regular basis as determined by the
faculty bylaws and will provide oversight for the process.
The Evaluation Committee
In practice the size and composition of the evaluation committee vary
considerably according to the size and complexity of the campus. Some variations
include an evaluation committee which reproduces the representation of the search
committee for the position under review. A more comprehensive model designates an
evaluation coordinator for the entire campus with small, individual committees for each
division or school. The campus representing this model produces a comprehensive
review of university programs and services and all senior administrators on a biennial
basis. Another model establishes a coordinating committee overseeing departmental
evaluation committees which do the actual evaluation and then report back to the
coordinating committee. But a common feature of all evaluation committees is that they
represent all sectors affected by the policy and decisions of the individual under review.
Generally evaluation committees are elected, but in some instances they are appointed by
the CGL alone or consulting with the local senate executive committee.
The Evaluation Cycle
Most bylaws or governing documents specify that senior administrators be
evaluated every three to five years. (Although one campus is attempting biannual or
even annual evaluations of all senior administrators.) However, it is increasing practice
that senior administration positions are filled as interim appointments which are typically
not evaluated. Additionally, administrative terms are often shorter than previously
because of increasing mobility and volatility in higher educational administration. Both
realities often delay and complicate faculty evaluation. One suggestion is to move up the
first evaluation to, for example, the second year of service. It has been noted that new
faculty are typically reviewed in their first year of performance, with the information then
available. The goal is that evaluation occur in a timely way to affect and enhance
individual and institutional performance.
3
“Faculty Evaluation of Administrators”
Initiating Evaluation
In practical terms, this is one of the greatest obstacles to faculty evaluation of
administrators. While bylaws may require the process to take place, an individual or
individuals needs to initiate the process. Governance leadership changes, often
frequently; no formal training for the position of CGL takes place, and knowledge of
policy and governance documents varies considerably from individual to individual and
often takes time to acquire. Additionally, different “leadership styles” prevail and often
if the CGL perceives resistance to faculty evaluation from the college administration, the
easiest course is to simply ignore or defer the practice. There is no easy solution to this
problem, but one campus has a published record of the evaluation cycle, and the
governance secretary simply informs all parties at the beginning of the academic year
that a review is required for specific individuals.
The Evaluation “Instrument”
In practice, survey instruments vary as much as the composition of the evaluation
committee. Standard evaluation formats are available (see D. Sharon Miller et al.
following), and they invite respondents to rate job performance according to key
categories such as “communication skills,” “leadership,” “organizational skills” etc.
Others are highly particularized for aspects of job performance that are specific to a
particular position and may not apply to all administrative positions (i.e. “purchasing of
equipment and supplies”). The advantage of a standard form is that it requires less of the
evaluation committees and therefore makes it more likely that the process will be
accomplished, but it will also yield less precise information about performance. One
campus includes a standard evaluation instrument on its governance webpage, with the
invitation that specific committees adapt or modify it as necessary. Most instruments
examined invite a combination of quantified and written responses. Increasingly,
surveys are web-based with obvious advantages in respect to collection of information.
However some caveats apply: safeguards need to be put in place to prevent multiple
responses from a single individual. Procedures need to be established to ensure that only
members of the evaluation committee have access to the collected information.
Dissemination on Information Collected
Typically, the evaluation committee will have received supporting documentation
from the individual being evaluated, which it will take into account in preparing its
report. The evaluation committee is also responsible for tabulating quantifiable results
and editing prose comments to remove potentially scurrilous responses. What happens
after this point varies considerably. In some instances, only the committee, the
individual evaluated and his or her immediate supervisor see the survey data. In other
cases, a summary is presented to the CGL and the executive committee; it may also be
placed in a public place such as the campus library. Before the summary is prepared, the
individual evaluated may have the opportunity to respond in writing to the results of the
4
“Faculty Evaluation of Administrators”
survey, and these comments may be acknowledged in the committee report. At one
campus, the tabulated responses and edited, selected prose comments are placed on the
restricted campus website for all members of the university community to access
Whatever method of dissemination is employed is obviously a function of local
practice and negotiation, but where faculty and professional staff see none of the results
of the evaluations, a sense of mistrust and futility may result. Consequently, it is
recommended that individuals participating in the survey have access to some version of
the results, even if it is only an edited summary.
Conclusion
The opportunity to evaluate senior college administrators is an important faculty
prerogative, which, if pursued carefully, can give faculty a stronger sense of participation
in the governance of the college. The first step in establishing the process as a regular
feature of academic practice is to convince all parties, administrators and faculty alike,
that the goal, beyond the personalities involved, is finally institutional improvement, and
that the considerable work involved for faculty is worth undertaking. The University
Faculty Senate can take on an important role in affirming the importance of faculty
evaluation of administrators by encouraging Campus Governance Leaders to revisit
mechanisms for evaluation which may already be in place at their campuses, or where
none exist, to examine the practices at those campuses which are successfully
accomplishing this goal and, as necessary, adapt them to their own needs.
5
“Faculty Evaluation of Administrators”
Faculty Evaluation of Academic Administrators, a Brief List of Resources
January 2005
Foundation documents
American Association of University Professors. “Statement of
Government of Colleges and Universities,” 1966.
http://www.aaup.org/governance/index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------. “Evaluation of
Administrators.” (AAUP Policy documents and reports,1984) as displayed on the
Canadian Organization of Faculty Association Staff’s website.
http://www.caut.ca/cuasa/cofas/Documents/aaup-admin-eval.html
Miller, D. Sharon et al. “Evaluating Administrators: Designing the
Process in a Shared Governance Environment.” Washington, D.C.: Annual
International Conference of the League for Innovation, 1993. ERIC ED361 047.
This substantial 81 page document “provides guidelines and sample forms
and instruments to help in the development of a system for evaluating
community college administrators.” Included is a sample evaluation
instrument which has been adapted by SUNY Binghamton and can be
found online at:
http://facultysenate.binghamton.edu/completeECCchargeandprocedures.ht
m
State University of New York. Office of the Chancellor. “Guidelines for
Presidential Reviews & Evaluations at State-Operated Campuses,” n.d.
------------------------------------. “Policies of the Board of Trustees, 2001,
Article VI (University Faculty) Section 3 (Responsibilities).”
http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/PDF/Policies.pdf
University Faculty Senate Governance Committee. “Role of Faculty in
Evaluation of Senior Administrators at SUNY Campuses.” Survey conduced by a
subcommittee of the SUNY Faculty Senate Governance Committee 2002-3.
Journal articles
Heck, Ronald et al. “Administrative effectiveness in higher education:
improving assessment procedures.” Research in Higher Education. 41.6
(2000):.663-684.
6
“Faculty Evaluation of Administrators”
Lasley, T.J and Haberman, M. “How do university administrators
evaluate deans?” Journal of Teacher Education. 38.5 (1987): 13-16.
Matczinski, T. “The deanship: how faculty evaluate performance.”
Journal of Teacher Education. 40.6 (1989): 10-14.
Rosser, Vicki J. et al. “Academic deans and directors: assessing their
effectiveness from individual and institutional perspectives.” Journal of Higher
Education. 74.1 (2003): 1-25.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_higher_education/v074/74.1.rosser.pdf
Websites
American Association of University Professors. http://www.aaup.org/
Canadian Organization of Faculty Association Staff.
http://www.caut.ca/cuasa/cofas/, especially its Document Archive which contains
links to policy and procedure documents from selected academic institutions
http://www.caut.ca/cuasa/cofas/Documents/index.html
SUNY Campuses which conduct regular faculty evaluation of administrators.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and the Governance Committee
solicits information from other SUNY campuses which engage in regular
evaluation or which have policy / procedures in place that may be helpful
to other SUNY units:
SUNY Binghamton
SUNY Fredonia
SUNY New Paltz
SUNY Stonybrook
7
“Faculty Evaluation of Administrators”
8
